Dismissed¶12

Ram Nihal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2025WRIA/420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commutation of pension; recovery of commutation amount in installments from pension; 15-year deduction rule; Article 226 writ; WRIT - A No. 420 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.; decided 17.3.2025; res integra; relies on Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others v. Union of India (Writ - A No. 17819 of 2024, decided 15.01.2025) and Radheshyam Shukla and others v. State of U.P. (Writ - A No. 19031 of 2024, decided 06.03.2025); outcome: petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No indulgence can be granted where the controversy is covered by decisions of this Court which the petitioner's counsel could neither dispute nor distinguish on law or facts, and for which no contrary Supreme Court precedent could be cited. ¶11

Ram Nihal and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37786

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 420 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Nihal And 8 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Balram Jee Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶7

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have questioned recovery of the commutation amount given to the petitioners, by means of installments from pension.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that since amount paid as commutation has already stood recovered, further recovery from the pension of petitioner is bad even though rules provide for deductions for a period of 15 years.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the controversy is no more res integra in the light of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others v. Union of India and another passed in Writ - A No.- 17819 of 2024 decided on 15th January, 2025 which has also been followed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Radheshyam Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others along with bunch matters passed in Writ - A No.- 19031 of 2024 decided on 6th March, 2025.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above facts, nor could take any plea that above judgments are distinguishable on law or on facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not place any judgment of Supreme Court to hold that judgments relied upon by learned Standing Counsel are not binding judicial precedents.

¶11

In view of the above, no indulgence can be granted by this Court in such matter.

¶12

Thus petition is dismissed in the light of the law laid down in aforesaid quoted authorities of this Court.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Sanjeev

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Nihal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nihal and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anuraj Ram and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Namrata Ratna vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shrinath vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Dixit and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Udai Ram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prem Kumar Bajpai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others